



Class .B D7Q 1 
Boole , / (- 



GopyrigtoK?.^ 



C6EXRIGHT DEPOSm 



Cije €temal Artier 



Copyright 1922 
G. T. Bond 

n 



Crane & Company 

Topeka, Kansas 

1922 



Wnoi 

3 b 



NOV 20 \h22 

©CU691 263 



A 






PREFACE. 



"The Truth shall make you free". 

Delusions, however pleasant, or of however long 
standing, should be discarded, as they are inimical 
to Truth, which is the basis of all real progress ; there- 
fore, pray not for faith to believe that which your 
mind rejects as false, but use that mind in an earnest 
effort to learn that which is true. 

The Author. 



EARLY TRAINING AND BELIEF. 

My parents were members of an orthodox Chris- 
tian church. I was reared in the same faith. I be- 
lieved the Bible to be the infallible Word of God, 
written by men inspired; that to question, or doubt, 
any statement contained therein was a sin; that all 
other religious beliefs were false, and the followers 
thereof were pagan. 

I believed in a personal God, who created the heav- 
ens and earth and all contained therein; in a personal 
devil, who had once been an angel, but had become 
evil through an avaricious ambition; in a literal 
heaven, and hell ; that at death one went to one or the 
other of those places, eternally. 

I believed that all mankind were born in sin 
through the transgression of Adam; that atonement 
for that transgression had been made by the cruci- 
fixion of Christ; that any one could receive the bene- 
fit of that atonement by conviction of sin, repent- 
ance, and faith; thereby securing, at death, an eter- 
nal life of happiness; that failure to comply with 
those requirements would condemn one to an eter- 
nity of misery. 

I so believed, not through a process of investigation 
and analysis, but simply because I was so taught; 
taught by good men and women, who so believed, 
and so believed because they had been so taught. 

Had I been born in other than a Christian land; 



been taught other faith, I would, no doubt, have ac- 
cepted as readily, and believed as unquestioningly, 
whatever I might have been taught, because my mind 
was plastic and receptive to the teaching of my 
elders. 

As I grew older I began to question, to doubt, and 
then to disbelieve some, but by no means all, of those 
teachings. (I cannot conceive of a higher moral pre- 
cept than, "To do unto others, as we would have 
others do unto us." I cannot conceive of a higher rule 
of conduct than that of one giving his life for an- 
other.) 

ACQUISITION OF BELIEF. 

Religious beliefs, like political, ethical, artistic, or 
any other, were first acquired by observation and 
reflection. Now, they are, principally, acquired, in 
youth, as a result of the teaching of those whose wis- 
dom we assume, and whose instruction we accept as 
unquestionable truth. 

As we grow older those beliefs are modified by 
various influences; but, in youth, if we had been 
taught that black were white, then, to us, black 
would have been white. If we had been taught that 
low were high, then, to us, low would have been 
high. If we had been taught that wrong were right, 
then, to us, wrong would have been right, and we 
could have committed the most atrocious deeds with 
as clear a conscience as was Abraham's, when he was 
about to slay his beloved son. 



6 



EARLY CAUSES OF DOUBT. 

Living, as I did, in a small community where the 
environments were restrictive of any liberalism in 
religion, and believing in the rigid doctrines of the 
church, of which I was a member, I assumed that all 
the other members believed as I did; therefore, I 
could not reconcile the action of some members to 
our common belief. Many had intimate friends and 
relatives who were not members of any church, nor 
had they made any apparent attempt to comply with 
what we regarded as necessary conditions to secure 
their eternal happiness. 

If the members, having those friends and relatives, 
really believed that unless one were converted that 
one would suffer eternal misery, why did they not 
make a greater effort, if need be a very strenuous 
effort, to secure the conversion of those friends and 
relatives? 

After thinking this Over, I came to the conclusion 
that they did not so believe; and this conclusion 
opened the way to many questions. 



FALLIBILITY OF THE BIBLE. 

One of the first questions as to the infallibility of 
the Bible was in regard to a statement in the book of 
Genesis, to the effect that God repented of having 
made man. If God repented of having done a certain 
thing, was it not evident that He lhad done a delib- 
erate wrong, or had made a mistake? 



My pastor assured me that God could neither do a 
wrong act, nor make a mistake; and he conceded 
that the statement was undoubtedly erroneous. 

The admission of the possibility of there being an 
error in the Bible was a shock to my narrowly trained 
mind; for I perceived that if one mistake existed 
there might be others, and that whether the errors 
originated in authorship, or in translation, one would 
have to weigh the evidence to determine the truth or 
falsity of all the statements. 

Another question was in regard to the recorded 
Flood. Whence could have come all the water nec- 
essary to entirely submerge the entire earth's sur- 
face at one time? Had all the moisture in the atmos- 
phere been condensed and precipitated upon the 
earth there would not have been sufficient water to 
cover all the mountains. Again appealing to my pas- 
tor, he could only account therefor by assuming that 
it had required a miracle to provide the amount nec- 
essary to cover the whole surface, and another mir- 
acle to dispose of it at the subsidance of the flood. 

His explanation of this, and many other questions 
satisfied my mind at that time, nor have they seri- 
ously disturbed me since; as I have regarded most of 
them as non-essentials, without invalidating any of 
the great fundamental precepts taught. 

ORIGIN OF EVIL. 

One question that did seriously disturb me arose 
in a Young People's Meeting. There was a discus- 



sion in relation to a statement in the book of Revela- 
tions, about a "war in heaven/' in which one of the 
angels led a revolt. As the discussion proceeded I 
asked the minister how it was possible for an avari- 
cious ambition to be conceived in a place where there 
was not, had never been, anything whatever to sug- 
gest such a thought ? The minister said that was One 
of the questions that had never been aswered in a 
satisfactory manner, and involved the whole doctrine 
of the Origin of Evil. 

After many years I have answered that perplexing 
question to my own satisfaction, reference thereto 
being made under the caption of Polarity. 

Various other questions arose from time to time, 
and were explained; but still others arose for which 
I have never seen any satisfactory explanation, and 
the principal object of this article is an attempt to 
offer an explanation therefor, by means of certain 
questions, so arranged that the answers will be ob- 
vious. 

VALUE OF A STATEMENT. 

The value of a statement depends, not upon the 
author, however wise, however sincere, however 
much he believes he is right, or by whosesoever au- 
thority he claims the statement is made; but, solely, 
upon its relation to the facts in the case. 

If the statement is made by one who has a repu- 
tation for wisdom, truthfulness and carefulness in 
his assertions, it is entitled to more ready credence 



9 



than if made by one not so favorably known; but, if 
the statement is erroneous, then, because of the au- 
thor's good reputation, the damage that might result 
from the error could be more far reaching in its 
effects than if it had been made by the one less favor- 
ably known. 

Investigation has revealed that statements do not 
make facts, not even if prefaced by, "Thus saith the 
Lord." 

The statement that the Jews were the chosen peo- 
ple of God does not prove that they were indeed so 
chosen. The assertion of an author, that God told 
him to say, or write, a certain thing, does not prove 
that he was so instructed; even though he might so 
believe, and be perfectly sincere in his assertion. 

Age does not prove a statement is true. The Ptole- 
maic theory of our planetary system endured a thou- 
sand years; until Copernicus thought, and thinking, 
perceived the falsity of that long established, and 
supposedly scientific theory; thereby paving the way 
for Galileo and Newton to establish the present one. 

Impressive ceremonies do not prove the truth of a 
statement, though they might, by their very impres- 
siveness, long continue a passive acceptance thereof. 

THE QUESTION MARK. 

The Question Mark is a guide to progress, in reli- 
gion, as in all other achievements. Paul said : "Prove 
all things; hold fast that which is good". Why should 
we not apply this test to scriptural statements, as well 



10 



as to secular? Truth is eternal. Questions cannot 
harm it. Questions can harm only that which is false, 
and the false should be destroyed; because it some- 
times obscures and retards the perception of the 
truth. 

CREATION. 

A writer, in book of Genesis, states that, "In the 
beginning God created the heavens and the earth 
* * * and all the hosts of heaven", 

A writer, in the Vedas, of the Hindus, states that, 
"Other than Him, nothing existed, which since has 
been * * * who knows exactly, and who shall 
in this world declare, whence, and why, this Creation 
took place?" 

ORIGIN OF RELIGIONS. 

Most religions, if not all, are born of the phenom- 
ena of Nature. They are the products of attempts to 
explain, or interpret, the tangible objects, and the 
intangible forces in operation among those objects 
as they are manifested throughout the universe. 

The writers, in Genesis and the Vedas, seem to 
have considered these manifestations, and to have 
assumed that God, or a spiritual Intelligence, existed 
prior to the material universe. That He had always 
so existed, without there ever having been such a 
reality as material substance; then, at some period 
He began and created the heavens and all therein. 

They appear not to have realized that if God, a 



11 



spiritual Intelligence, had always existed, but there 
had never been such a reality as material substance, 
there would have been nothing whatever to have 
suggested the thought of such a substance. 

In the second verse of Genesis this statement is 
made: "And the earth was without form and void; 
and darkness was upon the face of the deep". 

Because of that statement, it might be claimed 
that the writer realized that there could not be any 
power capable of creating a something from a noth- 
ing; that he realized, as nearly all philosophic writ- 
ers now do, that the substance of all the material 
universe had always existed; but, that it was dif- 
fused throughout space in a nebulous condition — 
without orderly arrangement. 

NEBULAR HYPOTHESIS. 

That the Nebular Hypothesis might be true as to 
the formation of a planetary system, such as ours, I 
readily concede ; but, to assume that all material sub- 
stance had always existed, without form and void, or 
in a nebulous condition, then, at some stated period, 
was evolved into a perfectly harmonious system of 
moving planets, with all their multiform varieties of 
living beings, I cannot concede. 

The question naturally arises, that if such a sub- 
stance had always existed, in a nebulous condition, 
"what could have suggested the thought of any other 
arrangement ?" 



12 



THOUGHT AND KNOWLEDGE. 

To think, there must be something about which to 
think. To will, there must be something about which 
to will. To choose, there must be something about 
which to make choice. To perceive, there must 
be something to induce the perception. To remem- 
ber, there must be a subject of remembrance. To 
understand, there must be a something to understand. 

What constitutes knowledge? Is it not an idea, or 
an aggregation of ideas inducted into the mind 
through the perception of the senses? 

If one were born blind, deaf, had no sense of feel- 
ing, smelling or tasting, would it be possible for such 
one to acquire any knowledge ? 

Or, if one had all the senses, yet nothing existed 
to impress those senses, would it be possible for such 
one to acquire any knowledge beyond himself? 
Knowledge of what? Could there be knowledge of 
nothing ? 

If one were born blind, would it be possible for 
such one to acquire sight knowledge? He might ac- 
quire a knowledge that certain objects were round 
or square, long or short, beautiful or ugly, but the 
knowledge so gained would not be that of sight, but 
would be due to some other sense; for if sight came 
to him, he would not know, by it, whether the object 
were round or square, long or short, beautiful or 
ugly. He would have to rely upon some other sense 
to determine one from the other. 



13 



This is true of all the senses. In order to have taste 
knowledge, one would have to taste; and all his 
knowledge of taste would be limited to the things 
actually tasted. His hearing knowledge would be 
limited to the sounds heard. His feeling knowledge, 
to the things felt. His smelling knowledge, to the 
things smelled. 

Then, if none of the actualities enumerated in the 
story of Creation had ever existed, how could there 
have been any thought or knowledge of them? If a 
statement were made that the Plan of an orderly 
universe had always been in the mind of God, but 
had never been executed; then, the question natur- 
ally arises as to what could have suggested the idea, 
or supplied the impulse and power to execute the 
plan? 

EFFECTIVE POWER. 

Power to be effective must be applied. Power can- 
not be applied to nothing. Power must be applied to 
something. All applied power exactly equals the 
resistance overcome. The initial power required to 
start moving a body at rest must be greater than the 
resistance, but the power is transferred and con- 
served in the moving body as momentum, or energy 
of movement, so that, when the body comes to rest, 
the resistance overcome has exactly equalled the 
power applied. 

If there did not exist, had never existed, anything 
to offer resistance, how could there have been the 
application of any power? 



14 



NON-ENTITY. 

We know that if there had never been anything, 
anywhere, there could never be anything. Nothing- 
ness could not transform into Something. That is 
self-evident. 



SPIRITUALITY. 

If God, a spiritual Intelligence, had always existed 
alone, not another being or object in existence, of 
what could He have thought, or of what would His 
intelligence have consisted? 

Do we not know that to think, there must be some- 
thing about which to think; that thought cannot be 
about nothing? Do we not know that power, to be 
applied, must be applied to something; that power 
cannot be applied to nothing? 

Then, if God existed alone, would not all His 
thoughts have been limited to Himself alone? How 
could He think about anything else, if nothing else 
existed? How could He have consciousness about 
anything else, if nothing else existed? How could 
He plan about anything else, if nothing else existed ? 
How could He will about anything else, if nothing 
else existed? How could He choose about anything 
else, if nothing else existed? How could He have 
affection for anyone else, if no other existed ? How 
could He have perception, or remembrance, or un- 
derstanding about anything else, if nothing else ex- 
isted? How could He apply power to anything else, 



15 



if nothing else existed ? How could He be a Creator, 
if He had never created? How could He create a 
material universe, if there did not exist, had never 
existed, any material substance with which to create 
such an actuality? 

Do we not know there is not, never was, nor ever 
will be, any power that can, ever could, or ever will 
be able to create a Some-Thing from No-Thing? 

Do we not know there is not, never was, nor ever 
will be any power able to annihilate a Some-Thing to 
No-Thing? 

Are we not compelled to conclude that if God had 
always existed alone, He would always so continue 
to exist; that if He had always been a spirit, He 
would always so continue to be a spirit; that if there 
had never been such an actuality as material sub- 
stance, there could never be such a substance; that 
if such a substance does exist, it has always existed ; 
that if it has always existed, it was never created ? 

EXISTENCE. 

It is conceivable there could have existed a spirit- 
ual being, or a multitude of spiritual being, without 
there ever having been such a reality as material 
substance; but, is it conceivable that if they had 
always so existed, they could ever have created such 
a substance, transformed themselves, or been trans- 
formed into such a substance? 

It is conceivable that both spiritual and material 

16 



entities could have existed, absolutely apart from, 
and independent of each other; but, is it conceivable 
that if they had always so existed, they could ever 
have any association or connection with each other? 

As they had always existed, would they not always 
so continue to exist? What could suggest, or insti- 
tute, any alteration in an eternal relationship? 

LIMITATIONS. 

Before proceeding further, there are two truths 
that must be recognized, or our perceptions will be 
imperfect, and our conclusions be erroneous. 

First: That as there is not any power capable of 
creating a something from nothing, there must be a 
limit to the extent of the material universe ; that how- 
ever great that extent, there must be a fixed number 
of indivisible particles composing it; that there has 
never been any addition to, nor subtraction from, 
that number, nor ever will be; that those particles 
are eternal, uncreatable and indestructible actuali- 
ties — real things ; that all things are limited in extent. 
Is it conceivable that any thing can fill a limitless 
expanse? Is that not a supposition analogous to an 
'irresistable force meeting an immovable object?' Is 
it not a self-evident impossibility? 

Second: That all power is limited. That power is 
not an abstract entity, but a concrete property, or 
manifestation of an actuality; and that whether the 
power be vested solely in a Supreme Being, or that it 
is an inherent property of material substance, it is 



17 



limited in amount to that which it has always been. 

If all power is vested in a Supreme Being, could 
He acquire more power, if no more existed? From 
whence ? 

All power is limited to the possible, and, as pre- 
viously stated, all power cannot, could not, will not 
do the impossible by bringing into existence a Some 
Thing from No Thing; therefore, if God controls all 
the movements and changes in the material universe, 
His control is over a fixed number of indivisible 
particles, and that whatever the forms into which the 
particles are combined, or however many of the par- 
ticles are required to assemble the completed wholes, 
the total number of the indivisible particles always 
remain the same. 

Is this not true? If so, then are the present forms, 
movements and changes occurring throughout the 
universe new and different from any that have pre- 
viously occurred, or are they exact repetitions of 
forms and changes that have always been occurring ? 

If God had always existed; if all existing power 
had been vested in Him; and if all material sub- 
stance had always existed as indivisible particles; 
yet He had never employed that power to effect any 
changes in their disposition, what could have sug- 
gested the thought, or supplied the impulse to insti- 
tute any other arrangement of the particles? 

SIMPLE FUNDAMENTALS. 

If we would understand complex subjects, we 



18 



musty first, master simple fundamentals. All the com- 
plexities of mathematics lie open to the one who 
learns the Arabic numerals. The world of literature, 
to the master of the alphabet. If we knew all about 
the indivisible, ultimate particle, we might be on the 
highway toward comprehending the complexities of 
the universe. 

Therefore, let us begin by assuming simple suppo- 
sitions in an effort to comprehend some of those com- 
plexities. 

If all power were vested in a Supreme Being, and 
His only control over the material particles had al- 
ways been to simply unite the particles into pairs, and 
separate the pairs, what could have suggested the 
thought of any other action? 

It is well to remember that we are considering, 
not a few million years, but Eternity, and if God had 
been employing those particles in that simple man- 
ner, to produce those simple forms, but no other, 
there would not have seen anything to suggest any 
other action, or produce any other forms. 

ACTION AND REACTION. 

It is clearly evident, that if God had always been 
uniting the particles into pairs, there would, neces- 
sarily, have been a corresponding and equal sepa- 
rating of the pairs; otherwise, however many the 
total number of particles, they would, in a compara- 
tively short time, have all been united into pairs, and 
the process Would have had to stop. But, if the uniting 



19 



had always been in operation, there could not be a 
stopping; because there could not be a stopping of 
an eternal process, and the only alternative would 
have been a corresponding and equal separating. 

Is it not obvious, that a fixed number of particles 
could not be united indefinitely, except by a corre- 
sponding and equal separating thereof? 

The law of action and re-action is immutable; 
every uniting necessitates a corresponding separat- 
ing; every separating necessitates a corresponding 
uniting; every union is self -evidence that the mem- 
bers comprising that union have been separated; 
otherwise, there would not be union, but unit. 

If God had always been uniting the particles into 
pairs, and separating the pairs, would He not always 
continue so to do ? Would He not always continue to 
do that which He had always been doing? What 
would suggest stopping, if He had never stopped? 

Would not there be just as many particles sepa- 
rating, as there would be uniting? Would not there 
be just as many uniting, as separating? Would not 
the reaction be equal to the action? Would not the 
balance be maintained? 

If God had always existed as a separate entity, 
and material substance had always existed as a sep- 
arate entity, in multitude of indivisible particles that 
had never been united into a form like an earth, a 
sun, or solar system, is it conceivable there could 
ever have been such forms? 



20 



If God had always existed; if He had always pos- 
sessed the power, hut had never employed that 
power to construct such forms, is it conceivable that 
He would ever have so employed that power? As 
He had always existed; as He had always acted, 
would He not always so continue to exist and act? 

If He had never thought of so employing that 
power, what could have suggested the thought of so 
employing it? If He had always thought of so em- 
ploying it, but had always lacked the impulse to do 
so, what could have supplied the impulse to do so? 
If He had always had the thought, the power, and 
the impulse; then, would not the execution have 
always been in effect? 

CONTINUITY. 

If this be true; then, have not earths, suns, and 
solar systems always been in existence ? If they have 
always been in existence, will they not always con- 
tinue to exist? 

If God had always been employing His power in 
combining the indivisible particles into the forms 
indicated, is it not obvious there must have been a 
corresponding separating of the particles from the 
forms; otherwise, there must have been the stopping 
of an eternal process? An impossibility, as exempli- 
fied when considering the uniting and separating of 
the pairs. 

Could there have been combined a vast number of 
particles into such forms in one part of the universe, 



21 



without there having been a corresponding decrease 
in number in some other part? 

Can a quantity of liquid be taken from one vessel 
and put into another, without decreasing the quan- 
tity in the one from which it is taken? 

Then, if there be a beginning and increasing, there 
must be a diminishing and ending; if there be a 
diminishing and ending, there must be a beginning 
and increasing; the balance is maintained; the law 
is immutable. 

If an earth, a sun, or system of planets begins, in- 
creases, and develops in one part of the universe, it 
is absolutely necessary that there be a corresponding 
diminishing, disintegrating, and ending of like forms 
in some other part. 

CYCLICAL PROGRESSION. 

If God had always been employing His power to 
effect cyclical progression among the particles, 
whereby there would be periods in which some of 
the particles would be violently agitated, while oth- 
ers were quiescent; then, those which had been vio- 
lently agitated would, in turn, become quiescent 
while the others would become violently active, 
would not this process always continue? Would not 
the cyclical progression continue as it had always 
been? Would not the movements, the changes, and 
the forms that had always been produced always 
continue to be produced? What could have sug- 
gested any variation from that which had always 
existed ? 



22 



COMPOUND WHOLES. 

If God's power had always been necessary to 
effect the movements, uniting the particles into the 
various forms produced, and in separating them 
from the forms, had He not always been an essen- 
tial part of the movement? 

If the material particles had always been neces- 
sary to complete the movements, and produce the 
forms, had it not always been an essential part of 
the production? 

If both God and material substance had always 
been necessary to complete the movement and pro- 
duce the forms, had not that association, or relation- 
ship, always existed? If that relationship had al- 
ways existed, would it not always continue to exist? 
If that relationship had always existed, were they 
separate entities, or indissoluble components of a 
compound whole? 

SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS. 

If God had always been combining the particles of 
material substance into various forms ; but had never, 
in all eternity, endowed any of the forms, so com- 
bined, with the faculty of self -consciousness, and self- 
movement, would He ever have done so? If He had 
never thought of doing so, what could have sug- 
gested the thought; supplied the impulse and power; 
and initiated the process of transferring the power 
of self-consciousness and self-movement from Him- 
self to the material particles? 



23 



Is it not clearly evident that if the particles had 
never possessed such power, it would have had to be 
derived from some source; and as God would have 
been the only source, would it not, necessarily, have 
had to be transferred from Him? 

If God had always possessed all the power of self- 
consciousness and self-movement, could He have 
transferred any of that power away from himself to 
another, without His power being diminished by 
exactly the same amount as transferred? 

If God alone had always possessed all the power 
that had ever existed, is it conceivable that He could 
have transferred any of that power away, yet main- 
tained His full power, except by the return of the 
power from the forms to which it had been trans- 
formed ? From what other source could His depleted 
power have been restored, if no other source existed ? 

If God had always possessed all the power of self- 
consciousness and self -movement ; the power to 
think; to choose; to will; to actuate; to vitalize; to 
love; to perceive; to remember; to understand; but, 
had never transf ered any of that power to any of the 
material forms that He had always been combin- 
ing and separating, what could have suggested the 
thought, or supplied the impulse to divide His power, 
in reality Himself, with another, or a multiplicity of 
others, each endowed with a portion of the power so 
divided ? 



24 



VITALIZED BEINGS. 

If God had always existed ; if He had always been 
combining material substance into forms, but had 
never combined the particles into the form of Man, 
nor, "breathed into him the breath of life; so that 
he became a living soul"; having all the man facul- 
ties, what could have suggested the thought of such a 
radical being? 

Biblical writers might state, that "Man was made 
in the image of God" ; therefore, a perfect model for 
man had always existed. 

But, again the question arises, if God had always 
been the only vitalized being in existence, what could 
have suggested the thought of another being? 

Are we not compelled to conclude, that if God does 
combine the particles of material substance into the 
forms of sentiment beings, and endows, or transfers 
to such forms the power of self-conscious individual- 
ity during a period of vitality that we call life, and 
removes that vitality, that power, that spirit, or that 
soul, at what we call death; then, He has always 
been so combining and endowing such beings, and 
that He 'will always continue to so combine and en- 
dow such beings; that whatever power He has al- 
ways used to effect the combining and energizing, 
He has always used ; that the particles used have al- 
ways been used; that the number so combined and 
endowed have always been the same; that there can- 
not have been either increase, nor decrease in the 
number; just as there cannot have been increase, nor 



25 



decrease in the power that has always existed; just 
as there cannot have been increase, nor decrease in 
the sum total of the particles of material substance 
always in existence? 

CO-ORDINATES. 

If God's power had always been necessary to com- 
bine the particles of material substance into the man 
forms, and a portion of that power had always been 
employed in vitalizing those forms, had not that por- 
tion always been an essential part of the man mani- 
festation ? 

If the groups of material substances had always 
been necessary to produce the man forms, had they 
not also been an essential part of the man manifesta- 
tion? 

If both God and material substance had always 
been necessary to produce such a man being, and 
those beings had always existed, as there has been 
an attempt to show they must have, is it not evident 
that relationship had always existed; and if it had 
always existed, it would always continue to exist; 
that if the relationship had always existed, the power 
and the particles had always been indissolubly asso- 
ciated together; that if they had always been indis- 
solubly associated together, one being the controller, 
the other the controlled ; then, both had always been 
co-ordinate essentials to produce the manifested 
whole ? 

Further than this: That it really does not make 
any difference whether the power combining and 



26 



vitalizing the particles is a distinct entity, spirit, or 
soul, eternally employed in effecting the transforma- 
tions among the particles ; or, that the power is an in- 
herent attribute of the particles, which joins and vi- 
talizes them into the man manifestations, the mani- 
festations have always been in existence, and will al- 
ways continue; and that the manifestations are exact 
repetitions of the same forms under identical condi- 
tions in the cyclical processes of the evolutionary pro- 
gression existing throughout the universe. 

DISSOLUTION. 

The manner of the combining of the particles into 
the man forms, beginning with the simple proto- 
plasmic mass, and the continuous and gradual incre- 
ment of the combining particles to the full form of 
man, in which the vital energy is continuously mani- 
fested until there is a cessation of the combining pro- 
cess at death, when there is an apparent departure, 
or withdrawal of the vital power, spirit, or soul ; but, 
leaving the particles in the form as combined, would 
seem to indicate that the vital power was, indeed, a 
distinct entity. 

However, it will be noted, that the cessation of the 
combining of the particles at death, and the appar- 
ent withdrawal of the vital power, does not prove 
that it is a distinct entity; or, that it is completely 
withdrawn, for while the combining of the particles 
ceases there is some power that immediately begins 
the dissolution of the particles from the form back 
into their indivisible condition. 



27 



Not only is it true that some power dissolves the 
form after death; but, it is also true that all during 
the combining process there is a process of dissolu- 
tion in operation. That while there has been a con- 
stant combining of the particles, and a constant in- 
crement of the form to the full stature of man, there 
has also been a constant disintegrating of almost the 
same number of particles from the form; so that 
there has been a constant change among the parti- 
cles composing the form. 

It is also true that the vital power has been under- 
going continuous changes. Increasing as the parti- 
cles have increased, to the apex of the man power; 
and then, except in the event of sudden death, grad- 
ually subsiding towards the dissolution at death. 

Whether or not the power effecting the disinte- 
gration of the particles after death is the same power 
that combined them, it is evident that the reproduc- 
tion of the forms necessitates the return of both the 
power and the particles; otherwise, there could not 
be a continuation of the process. 

Is it not evident that if a certain number of parti- 
cles had always been combined into the man forms, 
and endowed with the man faculties, there would al- 
ways be a certain number so combined and endowed ; 
and that the number of the forms so combined and 
endowed could neither increase nor decrease from 
the number that had always been; that as the power 
had always been employed, so would it always be 
employed ? 



28 



Is it not also evident that if there had always been 
a process of combining and endowing a certain num- 
ber of the particles into the man forms, there would, 
necessarily, have been a corresponding de-energiz- 
ing and dissolution of the forms ; otherwise, as in the 
case of the combining and separating of the pairs, 
previously cited, there must have been the cessation 
of an eternal process? 

"If a man die, shall he live again?" The answer to 
that question is as certain as to this: "If a man live, 
shall he die?" 



ETERNALITY. 

We know that material substance is indistructible. 
That indistructibility is one of the properties of mat- 
ter. That it will always continue without the quan- 
tity diminishing by a single atom; and that it is 
equally certain it has always existed without the ad- 
dition of a single atom; therefore, we know that all 
the atoms composing the man forms have always ex- 
isted; will always continue to exist. 

May we not be equally certain that the energizing 
power, spirit, or soul, that animates the particles, 
has always existed without increasing or decreasing; 
that as the particles could not increase from non-en- 
tity, or non-existence, nor decrease to non-entity, or 
non-existence ; neither could the power increase from 
non-existence, nor decrease to non-existence? 

May we not be equally certain, that if the parti- 

29 



cles had never been combined into the man forms, 
they would never be so combined; that as they had 
always existed, so would they always continue to ex- 
ist; that if they had never been energized with the 
vital power, they would never be so energized; that 
if the particles are being combined into the man 
forms, they have always been so combined; that if 
the forms so combined are being energized, they 
have always been so energized ; that if the combining 
and energizing at the inception to birth, and in- 
creases in both the number of the particles and in the 
energizing power, there must be an apex to both the 
forms and the power, from which there must be a cor- 
responding diminishing and dissipation at death and 
dissolution ? 

Is it not just as evident, that if a man die, he shall 
live again, as it is that if he lived he shall die? As it 
is that if the sun sets, it shall rise again; as it is that 
if the tide goes out, it shall come back ; that low tide 
and high tide simply mark stages around the circle 
of an endless continuing ; that if the sun is setting at 
some point, it is rising at some other point; that if 
the tide falls here, it must rise there; that there is 
neither increase nor decrease in the volume of sun- 
light; that there is neither increase nor decrease in 
the volume of water in the tides; that there is neither 
increase nor decrease in the power effecting those 
movements; that beginning and ending simply mark 
stages around the cycle of an endless progression; 
that life and death are analogous to those move- 
ments; that every death is but the portal to a re- 



30 



newed birth; that every birth is but a progression 
along the pathway to a death? 

IMMORTALITY. 

If a mortal, transitory, changeable being die, shall 
he ever be re-born into an immortal, unchangeable 
eternal being? 

Never in all eternity. Such a belief is untenable 
because every birth necessitates a death. Because 
of the very fact of being re-born necessitating re- 
death. Because every action necessitates re-action. 
Because every re-newing necessitates re-ending. Be- 
cause we know, that if there had never been such 
transitory being, there could never be such beings; 
because we know that if such beings do exist, they 
have always existed; that if they have always ex- 
isted, they will always continue to exist, for there is 
no possibility of stopping an eternal process. 

Why should any one desire to be re-born into an 
unchanging condition, or into an unchanging place? 

Would one want to merely exist, without any pos- 
sibility of development? 

Would one want to remain eternally where there 
were no changing days; no budding flowers; no rip- 
ening fruit or grain; no nesting birds, or playful 
young of field and mountainside ; no growing chil- 
dren to watch as their lives unfolded ? 

Does not bur pleasure come from being a part of, 
and in watching all the manifold changes on the 
earth? 



31 



However perfect a child might be, would its par- 
ents want it to remain a child forever? Would they 
not feel afflicted, if it ceased to grow? If a loved 
child died, would its parents want it to go to a place 
where there would be no further development? 

If there be growth and development, there must 
be decline and disintegration. It is the law of Nature, 
and Nature makes no mistakes. 

EVOLUTION. 

The conclusion, that man has always existed, and 
will always continue to exist, does not conflict with 
the evolutionary theory, because every movement in 
the universe is an evolutionary progression, from the 
lifting of a drop of water out of the ocean, and its 
return thereto, to the combining of a planetary sys- 
tem from a multitude of indivisible particles and its 
dissolution back into nebular particles again. 

If this earth was evolved from a nebulous condi- 
tion, if, in ages past, the particles were separated 
into indivisible substance and a power began to com- 
bine the particles into a compact mass which grad- 
ually cooled until the vapors surrounding it con- 
densed into the waters that form the oceans; and that 
to some of the particles there was added a vital 
power and protoplasm began; and the process con- 
tinued and there were further additions of power, 
until the evolutionary progression had produced 
among the Flora all the variations of phanerogams 
and cryptogams; and among the Fauna all the vari- 



32 



ations of vertebrates and invertebrates; that there 
were still further additions of the combining and vi- 
talizing power until the vertebrates crawled out of 
the water and stood erect upon the land ; and yet fur- 
ther additions of power to the vitalized being until 
he became a self-conscious constructive man and de- 
veloped a civilization; then, all of those movements 
were but an evolutionary growth as natural as the de- 
velopment of a flower, and exact repetitions of mil- 
lions of preceeding earths. 

Is it not equally evident that if this evolutionary 
progression has always been in operation, there must 
have been a corresponding and equal retrogression 
always in operation; that if there has always been a 
combining of the material particles, and the incep- 
tion and increasing in the number of the vitalized 
forms, there must have been a corresponding and 
equal de-vitalizing and dissolution of the forms; that 
it is impossible to continue an eternal process of com- 
bining among a limited number of particles, without 
a corresponding and equal separating among a like 
number of particles ; and that it is impossible to eter- 
nally expend power, without a corresponding and 
equal restoration of the power expended; that this 
is almost as self-evident as it is that a reservoir can- 
not be drawn from continuously, without replenish- 
ing the supply? 

Is it not evident there could not have been a be- 
ginning and progressing of those evolutionary proc- 
esses both in the earth, and in the vitalized forms on 
the earth, except there had been a corresponding 



33 



retrogressing and ending of a like process in and on 
some other earth ? 

Is it not also evident that if the power effecting 
the combining and vitalizing had always been so 
employed, yet there was a period when the particles 
of this earth were in a nebulous, or uncombined con- 
dition, and a later period when the particles were 
combined but no forms were yet vitalized; then, dur- 
ing such period, must not that power have been em- 
ployed in producing a like progression in and on 
some other earth? 

Is it conceivable there could have been the begin- 
ning and developing of a planetary system in one 
part of the universe, without a corresponding de- 
creasing and disintegrating of a like system in some 
other part? Whence could have come the material 
and the power for the reconstruction; except from 
the dissolution of an equal quantity of material, and 
the recovery of an equal amount of power to re-new 
the operation? 

Is it conceivable there could have been the begin- 
ning and increasing in the number of the vitalized 
beings manifested in an evolutionary progression on 
an earth, without a corresponding retrogression and 
ending on some other earth? 

Is it not evident that if there be a diminishing and 
disappearing of all the vitalized beings from this 
earth, there must be a corresponding appearing and 
increasing of like being on some other earth; that 
identical conditions always produce identical forms? 



34 






THE UNIVERSE. 

Are we not compelled to conclude that the Uni- 
verse, as a whole, is unchanged and unchangeable; 
that as it is, so has it always been; that as it is, so 
will it always be; that there has been neither in- 
crease nor decrease in the number of the material 
particles composing it; that there has been neither 
increase nor decrease in the power effecting the 
movements and changes among the particles; that 
every change among the particles is but a repetition 
of a previous change; that they have always been in 
operation, and will always continue; that whatever 
forms are being produced throughout the universe, 
those same forms have always been produced; that 
whatever power is being employed in the production 
of those forms has always been so employed; that 
every form of planet, or system of planets, is an 
eternity old; that all the forms of life on this earth, 
or any other earth, have always been, will always 
be; that every action necessitates a re-action; that 
every beginning necessitates an ending; that every 
ending necessitates a re-newed beginning ; that every 
birth necessitates a death; that every death necessi- 
tates a re-birth ; that if there be a gathering together 
at one place, there must be a separating apart at 
some other place; that if a new heavens and earth 
begin and develop into an orderly system, with all 
their multiform varieties of living beings, an old 
heavens and earth must disintegrate and dissolve, in 
order to provide the necessary material for the re- 
forming of the new; that, "There is nothing new 



35 



under the sun," or in the sun, or around the sun; that 
history repeats itself, not only in human affairs, but 
in everything that exists; that however long it takes 
to complete the cycles of the evolutionary processes, 
or whatever the variations in the forms of the vital- 
ized beings, they are exact repetition of endlessly 
repeated processes and forms, in time, and place, and 
circumstances ? 

End of Article One. 



36 






ARTICLE TWO 



ATTRIBUTES 



If there be a mind, are we not compelled to con- 
clude there must be a something in which that mind 
dwells ? If there be thought, must there not be a sub- 
ject of that thought? If there be life, must there not 
be something to live? If there be vibration, must 
there not be something to vibrate? If there be ema- 
nations, must there not be a source from which those 
emanations proceed? If there be heat, must there 
not be a something to contain that heat ? If there be 
radiation, must there not be something to project that 
radiation? If there be energy, must there not be 
something to manifest that energy ? If there be con- 
sciousness, must not that consciousness be of some- 
thing ? If there be love, must there not be something 
to feel, and something to inspire that love? Is this 
not true of all the intangibles? 

Are we not compelled to conclude that the in- 
tangibles are subjective, not objective; that they are 
attributes, not abstract realities? That it is incon- 
ceivable there could be a manifestation of a material 
reality, if that reality had never existed? 

MAN 

If it takes millions of years for the evolutionary 
processes of an earth to bring about the right condi- 
tions for the production of man, and this earth was 
uninhabited by man for millions of years, is it not ab- 



37 



solutely certain there have always been some other 
earths on which the proper conditions existed, and 
that he lived there, as he lives here; that he died 
there, as he dies here ; that he loved there, as he loves 
here; that he hated there, as he hates here; that he 
hoped and despaired there, as he hopes and despairs 
here ; that he was first a savage there, as he was first 
a savage here; that something was added to his fac- 
ulties there, until he became a constructive being, 
and developed a civilization, just as something was 
added to his faculties here, until he became construc- 
tive and developed a civilization here; and if still 
further additions were made to his faculties there, 
and he became a being superior to man, so too will 
something be added to his faculties here, until he be- 
comes a being superior to man; but, if the evolution- 
ary processes do evolve a being superior to man, that 
being will not be man? 

The lower form of vertebrate that preceded man 
on the earth was not man, but a lower form of being. 

The lower form might have had nearly all the man 
faculties; but, until all the man faculties were added, 
that form was not man. It was something lower. A 
thing may be circular; but is not a circle, until it is 
complete. The chrysalis is not the butterfly; some- 
thing must be added to produce the butterfly. The 
bud is not the flower; something must be added to 
produce the flower. A being is not man, until he has 
all the man faculties; therefore, man did not appear 
on the earth until he had all the man faculties. He 



38 



did not appear until the condition in the evolution- 
ary progression of the earth had reached the iden- 
tical condition under which he has always appeared 
on other earths. He will not continue on this earth 
any longer than he has always continued on other 
earths. There will be no variation in the forms, nor 
in the number of the forms, from those that have 
always appeared under identical conditions. 

UNIFORMITY. 

Can there be any variations in the cyclical pro- 
gressions and manifestations continuing throughout 
the universe, from those that have always existed? 

If it took millions of years to bring about the right 
conditions, on this earth, for the production of the 
most simple organism of vitality, will it not take the 
same number of years to re-produce that same kind 
of an organism on another earth, passing through a 
like progression? And, if only on® such organism 
had been produced on an earth, and it had continued 
along its way and been dissolved at the completion 
of its cycle without there having been the produc- 
tion of another one; then, could an identical condi- 
tion, in a like progression, on another earth, have 
produced any other form, or any other number? 

Would not the organisms, and the number of the 
organisms, produced in the Paleozoic period of the 
earth's progression be re-produced in a like period in 
the progression of another earth? Would not this 
apply to the Mesozoic, the Ceneozoic, or any other 



39 



periods that may follow? Would not this apply to 
any of the innumerable earths preceding this? Do 
not like causes always produce like effects? 

If, in the further progression of the processes on 
the earth, something more is added to the man forms 
that will produce a being superior to man, will that 
being longer be man? Will he not be a being supe- 
rior to man? Have not the man manifestations al- 
ways been man? Will they not always be man? 

If, in the further progression of the earth, man 
can no longer be produced here; then, will not the 
power that has always been employed in his produc- 
tion, be re-producing him on some other earth where 
the season for his production, and the conditions, are 
identical to the season and conditions now existing on 
this earth? 

Has not man always existed? Will he not always 
continue to exist? 

GROUP CONSCIOUSNESS. 

As one of those man forms is combined and group 
consciousness begins at the inception to birth, another 
form is losing that consciousness at death; but, at 
birth, nothing is added to the whole of conscious- 
ness; nor, at death, is anything subtracted therefrom. 

Shall man retain remembrance of this group con- 
sciousness, in any subsequent re-grouping of the par- 
ticles into a re-newed form? 

As the individual particles are eternal, it would 

40 



be a reasonable assumption to believe in their eter- 
nality of consciousness; but, if the grouped form is 
dissolved back into indivisible particles, thereby los- 
ing their group characteristics, why should there be 
a continuation of the group consciousness, or remem- 
brance of the dissolved form, in the re-grouping of a 
re-newed form? 

A community, a state, a nation is a group of many 
individuals, all performing certain functions; some 
mental, some physical; some elected to rule, some 
being ruled. When the individuals are harmonious, 
a great nation is expressed. Sometimes, because of 
divergent interests among the individuals, there is 
discord, and the group is dissolved, the individuals 
being absorbed into other groups; or there is a re- 
newed grouping into a new nation. 

That the individuals would retain remembrance 
of the old group is conceded; but the former Na- 
tional consciousness would have passed away, and in 
its place a new nationality would be expressed. 

In a nation where the individuals are bound to- 
gether by common interests it has been found advis- 
able to delegate the various individuals to the duties 
for which they are deemed best fitted ; certain mem- 
bers being delegated to look after the welfare of the 
nation as a whole. When distress, calamity, or any 
need of any section of the nation is required, the 
individuals of that section, by some means notify the 
central, or ruling delegates, who provide means to 
render the aid required. 



41 



A nation, however complex, but expresses the 
characteristics of the individuals composing it. 

Man is comparable to such a nation. He is a com- 
plex expression of many individual components. 
Some performing mental functions; others, physical. 
Some ruling; others being ruled. Some being dele- 
gated to look after the welfare of the whole. When 
there is distress or need of any kind aid is rushed 
thereto; but, the need must be made manifest to the 
ruling members by the members of the affected por- 
tion, else there would not be either assistance ren- 
derd or knowledge thereof. 

When there is harmony among all the members a 
great character is likely to be expressed. When there 
is discord, due to the craving of acquired appetite, or 
habits detrimental to the best interests of the whole, 
mediocrity or failure results. 

Whatever the character expressed, the group is 
passing along an orderly process to dissolution, and a 
re-newed grouping. 

The writer knows that the particles composing his 
body have always existed, and that the vitalizing 
power, spirit, soul, or consciousness has always ex- 
isted; yet he has no recollections from any previous 
groups. Nor does he desire to have any remembrance 
of this group, in any subsequent re-grouping. "Suffi- 
cient unto the day, is the evil thereof". Also, the 
good. We know that existence is eternal, in both 
directions, so why should we want to remember the 
troubles of yesterday, when we can look forward 
toward the pleasures of tomorrow? 



42 



Enjoyment consists, very largely, in progressing; 
in developing; in learning; and in new, or re-newed 
experiences. To retain remembrance of all the expe- 
riences around cycle after cycle of existence, would 
deaden all the pleasures of anticipation. Let us trust 
we shall not remember, too long, lest we become 
satiated by the endless repetitions. 



ERRONEOUS BELIEF. 

The fear of death has been caused, partly, by an 
erroneous belief that man must, by his Will and 
Choice determine, in this life, his eternal future con- 
dition. That this decision will procure for him a con- 
dition of eternal bliss; or condemn him to a condi- 
tion of eternal misery. 

That such belief has inspired many benif icent acts, 
heroic sacrifices, and exalted martyrdoms, cannot be 
denied; but it is also true that it has been the cause 
of much anguish of mind, and misery of body. It 
bred the Inquisition, with all its attendant horrors. 
It caused massacres, relentless persecutions, and 
bloody wars. It is causing much misery among many 
good men and women today, through the fear that 
some loved one will be condemned to endless tor- 
ment. It is an evil belief, because erroneous, and its 
dissipation will be a palpable benefit to humanity. 



WILL AND CHOICE. 

Superficially, we think we change our mind. Do 



43 



we change our mind, or does our mind change? Are 
Willing and Choosing causes, or effects? To will 
and choose, must there not be a something in which 
the faculty of willing and choosing resides? To will 
and choose must there not be a something about 
which to make decision? If there were not a sub- 
ject to impress the mind, what could induce the deci- 
sion to act? 

We will to acquire a certain object. Is not the 
object the cause; the willing to acquire the effect? 
Does not the object initiate the impulse to will? If 
the object had always been present to the percep- 
tion of the mind, but had never induced the mind to 
act, could it ever do so. If the mind had always per- 
ceived the object, but had never been inclined to act, 
could it ever do so? The mind wills and chooses; 
but never, until it is impressed by an objective. 

The impression produced is the action ; the willing 
and choosing, the re-action. They are corellative 
parts of a complete whole. 

We choose between two objects. A third, and 
more desirable one appears. The more desirable ob- 
ject causes a change in choice. The third object is 
the cause; the change in choice, the effect. 

We will to picnic. We choose the day, and make 
our preparation. The day arrives, but the sky is 
overcast by heavy clouds and the rain descends in 
torrents. Our will and choice are changed by cir- 
cumstances beyond our control. 



44 



If we could mold our lives by will choice, would 
we grow old, and die? 

Moses chose to watch the flocks of Jethro; the 
plight of the Hebrews caused him to go to Egypt. 
Saul, of Tarsus, chose to go to Damascus and perse- 
cute the Christians; but circumstances caused him to 
become an apostle to the Christians. 

We do not change our mind. Our mind changes in 
accordance to an immutable law of the universe. 

To think we change our mind is as unreasonable 
as to think a flower changes its shape and color. We 
know the shape and color of the flower are changed 
by the circumstances of the environment in which it 
grows. The changes, small as they may be, are due 
to the combined influences of the earth, sun, wind, 
rain, in fact, to all the elements of Nature. 

We recognize that all the changes in the physical 
world are due to elemental causes, governed by the 
laws of development; yet, we seem to think the vari- 
ations in the development of the mental processes 
are the result of choice, chance, or caprice. 

We recognize that law regulates the germination, 
development, decline, and dissolution of the things 
Of the material world ; yet, we are slow to recognize, 
or reluctant to admit, that law regulates the incep- 
tion, development, decline, and disintegration of the 
manifestations of the mental world. 

Flowers, fruit, all vegetable and animal life ger- 
minate, develop, decline and disintegrate, because 



45 



they cannot do otherwise; but, not a single particle 
is added to, or taken from the whole. 

Ideas germinate, develop, decline, and disintegrate 
just as naturally as the flowers; but not a single idea 
is added to, or taken from the Universal Mind. 

NEW THINGS. 

Are there any new things? Botanists tell us there 
are no two leaves of the forest exactly alike ; but that 
is not proven. There might be many exactly alike, 
as far as we actually know. The assumption, that 
there are no two just alike, is based, no doubt, upon 
what seems to be reasonable evidence; but is not 
conclusive. The earth is not exactly alike from one 
day to another. It is just a little different today from 
the earth of yesterday. It will be just a little differ- 
ent tomorrow from the earth today; but, is it any 
different from that which another earth was under 
identical conditions during a corresponding progres- 
sion in the distant past? 

The roses of today may be different from any pre- 
viously existing on this earth; but they are exact re- 
productions of the same kind of roses that grew on 
another earth under exactly identical conditions. 
There is a little progression from day to day. 

If a rose had never previously existed, its produc- 
tion would necessitate a distortion of all the orderly 
processes of eternity to produce the freak. Freaks, 
so called, are orderly products of orderly causes, end- 
lessly repeated in time and place. 



46 



The developments of life on this earth, today, are 
very different from life millions of years ago, and it 
is very likely there will be many changes in the years 
to follow; but, what is this earth? A grain of dust 
in the universe, and all the various changes and de- 
velopments, in both the physical and mental mani- 
festations, are but as the ripening fruit, and have 
been experienced on millions of other earths preced- 
ing this one. 

The earth is ripening, and whether it is in the 
Spring, Summer, Autumn or Winter of its progres- 
sion, it will pursue its way unalterably to its dissolu- 
tion and re-newing in accordance to the eternal law. 

RECAPITULATION. 

In the preceding pages there has been an attempt 
to show that if there be a spiritual Supreme Being, 
who controls all movements and changes in opera- 
tion throughout the material universe, that control, 
and those movements and changes have always been 
in operation, and will always continue. 

The arguments have been: That if such Supreme 
Being controls all power, that power could not have 
been employed, nor could there have been any mani- 
festation of it, as it is manifested in the universe, 
except by the co-existence of the material substance. 

That if the material were necessary for the em- 
ployment of the power, and the power were neces- 
sary for the movements and changes; then, both 
were necessary parts in the production of whatever 



47 



forms appeared, and whatever changes took place in 
the forms. 

It was further argued that if there had never been 
any material substance in existence there could not 
have been any power applied, nor any material forms 
produced. 

The attempt was made to show that all power is 
limited in amount to that which has always existed; 
that there is no possibility of increasing that amount ; 
and that whether the power is vested in, or returned 
to, a supreme being, who continues to expend it as 
it is returned in continuing the movements and 
changes; or that it is an inherent property of the 
material particles and is simply transferred from one 
group to another in the actions and re-actions, it is 
evident the power must be recovered from the par- 
ticles, because that is the the only source from which 
it can be recovered. 

We know that if a vitalized being does not con- 
tinually restore the energy expended, that vitality 
will cease, and death will ensue. That vitality ap- 
pears to be restored, and even increased, by the con- 
sumption and absorption of de-vitalized or dead or- 
ganic matter in the form of food. Whether or not 
all the vital force is derived from the apparently 
dead organism we do know that if there be a com- 
plete cessation of their consumption death will ensue. 

Are those dead organisms completely de-vitalized, 
or is the energy derived from their consumption and 
absorbtion simply stored therein in a static condi- 



48 



tion, which under proper conditions is released in 
amount equal to the energy expended? Are atoms 
ever entirely de-vitalized? Are not the electrons in 
continuous motion around the nucleus in every atom ? 

If the power of movement and change must be re- 
covered from the material particles why would it be 
necessary for it to pass into the control of a supreme 
being, if he could only expend it in continuing move- 
ments and changes that he could not initiate; that 
were unalterable ; and that had always existed ? 

Why could not the actions and re-actions continue 
among the particles without the intervention of an 
intermediary who could not start, alter; nor stop a 
single action? 

MATERIALITY. 

We contemplate the material universe, and agree 
with the writer of Genesis, 'that it was good.' We 
also concede that it could not create itself; but, we 
cannot concede that it could have been conceived 
where there was nothing to suggest the conception; 
planned where there was nothing to suggest the 
plan; built where there was nothing with which to 
build. 

It appears not only more reasonable, but inevit- 
able, to conclude that as it does exist, so must it al- 
ways have existed; so must it always continue to 
exist; that even if none of the intangibles, such as 
consciousness, love, will, perception or any of the 
faculties of the senses, ever did exist, there could be 



49 



no possibility of its movements and changes ever 
ceasing or diminishing 

CONSERVATION OF ENERGY. 

"If a material body is moving onward, in absolute 
space, it will forever so continue to move, because of 
its inertia." Almost every high school student is 
familiar with that supposition. 

If a body were rotating on its axis, like the earth, 
in absolute space, it is equally true that it would for- 
ever so continue to rotate. 

If a body were at rest it would require the appli- 
cation of an amount of energy greater than the initial 
resistance offered to start it in motion; but the ex- 
cess energy would be transferred and conserved in 
the moving body as momentum, energy of movement, 
or persistence of force, and would be expended in 
overcoming the resistance encountered by the mov- 
ing body, so that, when it had again come to rest, the 
total energy expended would have exactly equaled 
the resistance overcome. 

Conversly, if a body were in motion would it not 
require a resistance exactly equal to its energy of 
movement in order to stop, or bring it to rest ? Would 
not that resistance exactly equal the total amount of 
energy expended to produce the motion? If a re- 
sistance were applied sufficient to stop the motion, 
would not that energy of movement be conserved in 
the resisting medium? 



50 



If the body plunged into a medium of resistance, 
like our atmosphere and the friction of contact not 
only brought it to rest, but dissolved it into indivisible 
particles, would there not be developed a friction, or 
heat energy, exactly equal to that energy of move- 
ment? 

A portion of the energy so developed would be 
transferred to the substance into which it plunged, 
and a portion would remain among the dissolved 
particles; but there could not be any diminution in 
the sum total of the energy. 

There could not have been any diminution through 
radiation; because heat cannot radiate, except there 
be a something into which it can pass. It cannot 
radiate into, or through non-entity. There must be 
some medium to receive it. 

Therefore, while the energy might be diffused 
among a greater number of particles to such an ex- 
tent as to seem to diminish, there could not be any 
diminution whatever. The full power of the energy 
of movement would have been conserved into what- 
ever it might have been transferred, whether the 
energy were heat, electricity, or whatever its nature. 

If we place our hand upon a coiled spring and 
exert a certain energy of movement to compress it 
a certain distance, is not an equal energy conserved 
in the compressed spring and in the heat developed 
by the friction of the molecules during the compres- 
sion? 



51 



If we remove our hand will not the conserved 
energy recoil the spring an almost equal distance? 
The infinitesimal difference in distance being due to 
the dissemination of a portion of the energy by the 
molecular friction into heat energy, which passes 
into adjacent substances where it is conserved. 

Repeated compression of the spring will finally 
transfer all the energy of movement through the 
molecular friction into heat energy and the spring 
will fail to recoil, and it will seem that there has been 
a loss of energy; but there has been no loss — it is 
simply transferred into other substances in full meas- 
ure to whatever energy of movement has been ap- 
plied. 

Suppose a body, in absolute space, had a certain 
temperature, would there be any possible way in 
which that tempraeture could be reduced ? Heat is a 
manifestation of energy. Energy cannot exist in the 
abstract. It is a property of something; therefore, 
heat cannot radiate, except there be a medium to 
absorb it. If nothing existed except that body, how 
could the heat radiate? Is it not obvious the body 
would always retain the same temperature it always 
had? 

If a body existed, in absolute space, nothing any- 
where else, to what conclusions would we be com- 
pelled to come regarding it? Would we not be com- 
pelled to conclude that it had always existed, just as 
it was? Nothing could have been added thereto, be- 
cause there would not have been anything, anywhere, 



52 



to add to it. Nothing could have been taken away 
from it, because if anything had been taken away 
there would have been something elsewhere. If it 
were stationary, it had always been so ; would always 
be so. If it were moving onward in space, it had al- 
ways been moving; would always be moving. If it 
were rotating on an axis, it had always been so rotat- 
ing; would always be so rotating. If it were com- 
posed of many parts and the parts were fixed in their 
relation to one another that relationship had always 
obtained. If the parts were changing in their rela- 
tion to one another those changes had always been 
occurring, and had always been occurring in regular 
order. If the parts were changing in their relation to 
one another they all had an energy of movement pro- 
portioned to their weight and speed. If one, moving 
faster than another contacted thereagainst the 
slower moving one Would act as a resistance and re- 
tard the speed of the faster one; but, at the same 
time, the energy of movement of the faster one would 
accelerate the speed of the slower, so that the aver- 
age speed of both would be exactly the same as the 
average speed of both before the union, and the 
energy of movement would be retained exactly as it 
was. 

If one contacted against another with sufficient 
force to completely stop it, the energy of movement 
of the one stopped would be transferred to the one 
against which it contacted, and its speed would be 
accelerated proportionate to the energy transferred 
from the one stopped; therefore, while one might be 



53 



stopped by contact, by friction, or by some other 
means, it could not be stopped, or even retarded, ex- 
cept by the absorb t ion of its energy by some other, 
or by all the others, and the total energy would al- 
ways remain exactly the same. 

If two bodies, equal in size and weight and acted 
upon by the same law of gravity, were revolving 
around a common center of gravity their velocity and 
orbits would be exactly the same. If it were possible 
to start one revolving around one stationary the at- 
traction of the one moving would gradually induce 
the other to moving in an orbit like an ever increas- 
ing coil, until the orbit became the same as the other 
and they would both move in the same orbit and at 
the same velocity. The energy of one would decrease, 
while the energy of the other would increase; but 
their combined energy would be constant all through 
the process. 

If two, of unequal size, were revolving around a 
common center of gravity, the velocity and orbit of 
the smaller would be proportionately faster and 
larger than the other. If many were in motion there 
would be many variations due to their influence upon 
one another; but there could not be a stopping of 
any without the transferring of its energy to some 
other in full measure. 

If the law of gravitation were attracting all toward 
a central place, the compression induced would de- 
velop a heat so intense as to vaporize and eject them 
back toward the periphery, there to condense and 
start the process over again. 



54 



Is not the universe comparable to such a form? Is 
there anything beyond it? Is it not just as evident 
there cannot be any increase or decrease in the 
amount of energy within it, as it is there cannot be 
any increase or decrease in the amount of the sub- 
stance of which it is composed ? 

Do we not know that if this whole universe were 
dissolved into indivisible particles there would al- 
ways be the same number; that it is impossible for 
any to be annihilated ? Do we not know it is equally 
impossible that there can be any decrease in the 
amount of energy; that however it might be dissem- 
inated, or whatever the variations in the forms ef- 
fected, it will exist, and will exist in that upon which 
its existence depends? 

Is it not evident there cannot be the stopping of a 
single movement in all the universe without the con- 
servation of an exactly equal amount of energy as 
that required to effect the stopping; that every ac- 
tion necessitates an equal re-action; that it is almost 
self-evident that all the power existing among the 
changing particles throughout the universe has al- 
ways existed; that there is no possibility of either 
increasing, or decreasing it; that the movements and 
changes have always been in operation, and will 
always continue; that it is impossible to separate the 
power from the material ; and that if it is impossible 
to separate the power from the material, it must be a 
property of the material and the movements and 
changes would go on forever, even if there were no 
consciousness of them? 



55 



If material substances had never possessed the 
faculty of self -consciousness, self -movement, percep- 
tion, love, or any of the intangible properties, could 
those substances ever have acquired them? 

Never. It is just as evident they could not have 
done so, as it is that if there had never been any- 
thing, any where, there could ever be anything; or, 
that if there had never been anything except spirit- 
uality there could never be anything else. 

In either supposition, spiritual or material, are we 
not compelled to conclude that if material substances 
do possess the intangible faculties they have always 
possessed them, and will always continue to possess 
them; that if they have always possessed, and will 
always continue to possess them, they are constitu- 
ent attributes of those substances? 

Is it not evident that a consciousness that has 
always been an indissoluble attribute of a material 
substance cannot be a separate and distinct entity? 

Could there be a material substance, if there were 
not a consciousness of it? Yes, if it had always so 
existed. 

Could there be a consciousness of being, if there 
were not a being to feel that consciousness? If not, 
then is not consciousness an attribute of the being? 

Is not the consciousness of the material being su- 
perior to the material? Of what value would mate- 
rial be, if there were no consciousness of its exist- 
ence? 



56 



Is the love of a mother superior to the mother who 
feels that love? Is it not the love that which exalts 
the mother? Could there be such an affection, as 
mother love, if there were not a mother to feel that 
affection? If not, then is not the love of a mother an 
attribute of the mother? 

Could the mother feel that love, if there were not 
a child to induce the affection? If not, then is not 
the love an effect; the child, the cause? Could there 
be a child, if there were not a mother? Could there 
be a mother, if there were not a child? Are they 
not interdependent; if one exists, must not the other? 
Which leads to Polarity. 

POLARITY. 

In Magnetism there are two poles, the positive and 
the negative. The energy of the positive exactly bal- 
ancs the energy of the negative; the energy of the 
negative, that of the positive. One pole is just as 
essential as the other. If one exists, so must the other. 
Both must exist, or neither could. However near to 
each other the extremeties, there must be a differ- 
ence between them, or they could not be. This dif- 
ference comprises the intermediate zones of the mag- 
netic energy. Midway between the extremities the 
energy is neutralized. This is the pivotal point. All 
on one side is positive energy. All on the other side, 
negative. These two poles and their intermediate 
influences are essential constituents of the one actu- 
ality, called Magnetism. 



57 



This polarity exists throughout the universe. With- 
out it, there is nothing. It is the measuring rod of 
being. The scale by which all variations are deter- 
mined. It matters not how long or short the scale, 
there is the one extremity, the other extremity, and 
the intermediate portions. 

It matters not how thick or thin an object, there is 
the one side, the other side, and the connecting inter- 
mediate. 

In the Earth there is the North pole, the South, 
and the intermediate zones. In Quality, there is the 
best, the worst, and all the gradations along the 
scale. In Quantity, there is the largest, the smallest, 
and the varying dimensions between. In Tempera- 
ture, heat and cold. In Electricity, positive and neg- 
ative; attraction and repulsion. In Music, harmony 
and discord. In Aspect, beautiful and ugly. In Cir- 
cumstances, rich and poor. In Distance, near and 
far. In Emotion, love and hatred; joy and sorrow. 
In Change, beginning and ending. In Movement, 
action and re-action; cause and effect. In Morality, 
good and evil. In Mortality, life and death. In Con- 
dition, heaven and hell. In Being, mind and matter. 
In Theology, God and devil. 

If there were no variations, could there be any 
basis by which comparisons could be made? 

If everything were of the same size, could there 
be large, or small? If everything were on the same 
level, could there be high, or low? If everything 
moved at the same speed, could there be fast, or 



58 



slow? If everything had the same temperature, could 
there be hot, or cold? If there were no beginning 
could there be an ending? If there were no action, 
could there be re-action? If there were not a cause, 
could there be an effect? If there were no birth, 
could there be a death? If there were no sorrow, 
could there be any joy? If the conduct of all were 
exactly alike, could there be good, or evil? If there 
were not a condition of hell, how could there be, of 
heaven? How would one ascertain if one were good, 
if there were no evil, or less good? 

While it is conceivable a number of objects could 
have existed without any variation whatever, there 
could not have been any intelligent conception con- 
cerning them, except as to numbers, space, and time. 
There could not have been any conception as to 
whether or not they were large or small, long or 
short, heavy or light, round or square, hot or cold, 
good or bad ; for, without any variations there would 
not have been anything to which they could have 
been compared to ascertain those qualities or quan- 
tities. 

In order to make comparisons, there must be some 
variations between the things compared; otherwise, 
there would be no basis upon which to found any 
knowledge concerning them. It matters not how 
small the variations, they afford the necessary basis 
for the comparison, upon which their relativity is 
determined. This basis must exist, or there could not 
be any possible conception with which to ascertain 
their quality or quantity. 



59 



Then, if there were no small, how could there be 
a large ? If there were no near, how could there be a 
far? If there were no low, how could there be a 
high? If there were no cold, how could there be a 
hot; or if no ugly, a beautiful; or if no sorrow, a joy; 
or if no evil, a good? 

How could there be a basis of comparison, without 
the opposite poles ? If one exists, must not the other ? 
Are not both essential constituents of the One? 

Are not the poles exactly balanced? Are not the 
extremities of all measuring scales the same distance 
apart? Is not the near just as great a distance from 
the far, as the far is from the near? Is not the cold 
just as much colder than the hot, as the hot is hotter 
than the cold? Is there not a pivotal point between 
all joy and sorrow? If good is at one extremity of 
the scale of Morality, and evil at the other, is there 
not a center of gravity between, and does not all on 
one side exactly balance all on the other side? If 
there were no evil to contrast against the good, how 
could there be any determination as to what consti- 
tutes good? Is not one just as essential as the other? 
If one has always existed, has not the other ? If both 
have always existed, then how could there have been 
an "Origin of Evil"? 

It matters not how good the character and life of 
one, this polarity exists in the greater good, and the 
lesser good. 

It matters not how evil the character and life of 
one, there is the greater evil, and the lesser evil, 



60 



which is really the good as compared to the greater 
evil. 

We are all a complexity of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. 
Hyde. 

Could there be any physical development, if the 
muscles were not employed in overcoming some re- 
sistance? 

Could there be any moral development, if there 
were no evil temptations to resist? 

If there be a positive energy for good, is there not, 
also, a negative energy for evil ? 

If there be a condition of heaven, is there not, also, 
a condition of hell? 

"Nature does not make half -hinges". 

SUMMARY. 

The Universe is eternal. 

It never had beginning. It has always existed. 

It will never have ending. It will exist forever. 

To it nothing has been added. 

From it nothing has been subtracted. 

It is a complex Whole, consisting of myriads of 
various parts and properties, evident to all our 
Senses. 

As a Whole, it is a Constant; never changing. 

The parts that are changing, have always been 
changing, will ever be changing; yet every change 
is but a repetition of a previous change. 



61 



Every repetition is a re-newing; yet the re-newing 
is but the re-assembling of an eternal Substance, into 
an eternal Form, in accordance to an eternal Plan, 
executed by an eternal Impulse. 

Within the universe there is no more Mind, nor 
less, than there has always been. 

There is no more Matter, nor less, than there has 
always been. 

There is no more Power, nor less, than there has 
always been. 

There are no more Changes, nor less, than there 
have always been. 

There are no more Plans, nor less, than there have 
always been. 

There are no more Forms, nor less, than there have 
always been. 

There are no more Impulses, nor less, than there 
have always been. 

There are no more indivisible Particles, nor less, 
than there have always been. 

There are no more Earths, nor less, than there 
have always been. 

There are no more Suns, nor less, than there have 
always been. 

There are no more Systems of planets, nor less, 
than there have always been. 

There is no more Heat, nor less, than there has 
always been. 



62 



There is no more Light, nor less, than there has 
always been. 

There is no more Electricity, nor less, than there 
has always been. 

There is no more Life, nor less, than there has 
always been. 

There are no more Varieties in the Mineral king- 
dom, nor less, than there have always been. 

There are no more Varieties in the Vegetable king- 
dom, nor less, than there have always been. 

There are no more Varieties in the Animal king- 
dom, nor less, than there have always been. 

There is no more Consciousness, nor less, than 
there has always been. 

There is no more Love, nor less, than there has 
always been. 

There is no more Knowledge, nor less, than there 
has always been. 

There is no more Wisdom, nor less, than there has 
always been. 

There is no more Righteousness, nor less, than 
there has always been. 

There is no more Happiness, nor less, than there 
has always been. 

There is no more Morality, nor less, than there 
has always been. 

Consciousness is measured on the Scale of Rela- 
tivity by its opposite, Unconsciousness. 



63 



Love, by its opposite, Hate. 
Knowledge, by its opposite, Ignorance. 
Wisdom, by its opposite, Folly. 
Righteousness, by its opposite, Unrighteousness* 
Happiness, by its opposite, Sorrow. 
Morality, by its opposite, Immorality. 
Without both we could know neither. 
Without both there could be neither. 

CIRCUITS. 

If the raindrops come from the ocean, must not the 
raindrops return to the ocean? 

If the blood comes from the heart, must not the 
blood return to the heart? 

If the grass comes from the soil must not the grass 
return to the soil ? 

If the earth came from nebula, must not the earth 
return to nebula? If it once came from nebula, and 
returns to nebula, will it not again come therefrom? 

"If life comes not from death, would not death 
exhaust life?" 

Is not the Buddhist belief, that the Individual can 
forever lose that individuality in the All, entirely 
erroneous? If the Individual comes from the All, the 
process has always been in existence, and will always 
continue. 

It might have taken millions of years for the earth 

64 



to cool sufficiently to condense the surrounding va- 
pors into the seas. 

How many drops of water are added thereto in 
a century? Yet the vaporizing and condensing goes 
on continuously. The rains descend in torrents. The 
vapors ascend in clouds. But, is not the volume of 
moisture almost the same from century to century? 

It might have taken millions of years for the ero- 
sion of the wind and rain to disintegrate and pulver- 
ize the rocks sufficiently to produce the most simple 
algae. 

How many grains of humus are added to the earth 
in a century? Yet the earth is covered continuously 
with vegetables and animal life. Is not the volume of 
such life almost the same from century to century ? 

Could the waters continue to descend into the seas, 
if there were not a corresponding ascension from the 
seas? 

Could the various forms of life continue to come 
from the earth, if the elements of such life did not 
return to the earth? How many such forms are 
added thereto in a century? 

We know that under the same conditions a certain 
amount of heat will evaporate a certain quantity of 
water, not just occasionally, but repeatedly. 

Year after year and century after century the 
earth receives the same amount of heat from the sun. 
Will not this certain heat evaporate the same amount 
of water from the earth, year after year and century 



65 



after century, and will not the same amount of mois- 
ture be condensed and precipitated back upon the 
earth? 

If the rainfalls, which seem to be so variable, re- 
main constant year after year, and century after 
century, why should not other seemingly variable 
occurrences also remain constant? 

Why is it that vital statistics record an increase in 
the percentage of male births during a period of 
great wars? 

We think. 

We think of that which is. 

We choose. 

Our choice is but a repetition of a previous choice. 

We plan. 

The plan has been in mind always; will be in mind 
forever. 

We execute the plan. 

The power to execute is drawn from the everlast- 
ing reservoir, the inflow of which is exactly equal to 
the outflow. 

Life cannot die. 

It cannot increase. 

It cannot decrease. 

It proceeds continuously. 

In man we see its manifestation. 

It is manifested in man as an individual. 



66 



It is manifested in many individual forms. 

Whatever the forms, they are exact repetitions of 
previous ones. 

As they are, we know they have been before. 

As they are, we know they shall be again, end- 
lessly. 

The circle is complete, whether the cycle be one 
life, or millions. 

Whether on this earth, or on some other earth. 

"Is there anything whereof it may be said; see, 
this is new? It hath been already of old time, which 
was before us". 

"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall 
be; and that which is done, is that which shall be 
done; and there is no new thing under the sun". 

"One generation passeth away, and another gen- 
eration cometh; but the earth abideth forever." 

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and 
hasteth to the place where he arose". 

"The wind goeth toward the South, and turneth 
about unto the North; it whirleth about continually, 
and the wind returneth again according to his cir- 
cuits". 

"All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not 
full; unto the place from whence the rivers came, 
thither they return again". 



67 



"There is no remembrance of former things; 
neither shall there be any remembrance of things 
that are to come, with those that shall come after". 

The End. 



68 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Oct. 2004 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Pe 

Crantv 

J 



